ACOC Responses to 6JSC proposals for November JSC meeting

This meeting continued to discuss ACOC responses to these proposals (see JSC website at http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html). Draft responses were prepared by Deirdre and discussed by ACOC. It was chaired by Deirdre

Confirmation of revised responses

ACOC confirmed the responses as revised following the previous meeting, pending the correction of some minor errors.

ACOC tentatively confirmed the response to LC6 – Corporate bodies considered to be creators, but would still like to seek expert comment from the Library community. Jenny offered to pass the Proposal and response to a law cataloguer at the Parliamentary Library who has previously assisted with policy on treaties.

Works and expressions

ACOC supports this proposal, but will suggest some alternative wording of the revised instructions and some additional examples. ACOC also notes that there appears to be some confusion in the proposal between “recording” and “transcribing”.

6JSC/ALA/1 – Revision of RDA 6.29.1.21 – Reports of one court

ACOC supports this proposal and the further changes proposed in the LC response.

6JSC/LC/8 - Revision of RDA 6.27.1.2 and RDA 6.27.1.3

ACOC partially supports this proposal. The attempt to clarify when a person should be considered responsible for a serial is appreciated, but ACOC does not support LC’s proposed treatment of serials as exceptional.

ACOC supports the changes with regard to moving images resources.

6JSC/LC Rep/2 – Selections as used in RDA Chapter 6

ACOC supports the revisions to Chapter 6 to consistently treat the preferred title for parts of works as an attribute of work.

ACOC does not support the blanket use of “Extracts” in place of “Selections”. ACOC accepts the use of “Extracts” for parts of a textual work at 6.2.2.9.2, but not for compilations of works at 6.2.2.10.3 and 6.14.2.8.6 (Music). We are unsure about the correct approach for the Bible and other sacred scriptures at 6.23.2.9.7 and 6.23.2.10.3

ACOC noted a related issue of missing instructions for constructing access points for compilations of works by one person. Jenny has written a separate paper on this matter which will be discussed at a later meeting.

6JSC/LC/7 – Changes in content characteristics

ACOC agrees with the addition of this note, and prefers the second option suggested. If option 1 is adopted, ACOC suggests changes to the wording in the proposal.

6JSC/CILIP/2 - Date of signing a treaty (6.29.1.33, 6.29.3.3)

ACOC would prefer that since an inconsistency has been identified, it should be corrected. ACOC suggests using the fullest date available in both instructions.

ACOC welcomes the opportunity this proposal provides to discuss the broader issue of overlap between this instruction and 2.4 (Statement of Responsibility), and would prefer the issue to be discussed at this broader level. If a decision is made not to at this time, ACOC supports the ALA proposal in general, but is not comfortable with extending the scope of this instruction to include graphic novels

Group 3 Elements and Subjects

ACOC welcomes this discussion paper as a first step in what will be a lengthy process of incorporating this additional content to RDA. Despite some concerns about starting this work before the FRBR Group has made progress on the integration of FRSAD into FRBR/FRAD, ACOC hopes the JSC discussions may be able to contribute to the process.

ACOC also made comments on specific aspects of this proposal, including:

The proposed treatment of conferences only as subjects. ACOC considers that RDA should allow for them to be both creators and subjects.

Establishing “Time” as an entity. ACOC understands that time can be both an entity and an attribute of other entities and feels this requires further discussion.

Items as objects. This needs to be examined in conjunction with the FRBR Review Group.

6JSC/CILIP/1 - 12-16, 23, 33-37 (Group 3 entities and subject)

ACOC considered that RDA should not be recommending the use of any specific subject system, such as PRECIS.